Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 48 of U.S. Patent No. 12,448,093. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the parent patent (US12,448,093) discloses: a floating wind turbine platform, comprising: a substantially triangular hull configurable to support a wind turbine tower; the hull comprising a first, second and third column, the first, second and third columns being connected by a first, second and third pontoon member, as well as by a first, second and third connector. The limitation that the connector having at least one planar side between the ends is recited in claim 48 of the parent patent (US12,448,093).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Fig. 2-4, 7, and 8 in the reply filed on 02/13/2026 is acknowledged.
The restriction requirement among groups A-F is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 34, 36, and 42 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear what geometric shape is considered substantially triangular, because a shape is either triangular or not triangular. A substantially triangular shape is a shape that is not triangular but the claim doesn’t define what shape it is.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 35, 37-41, and 43-46 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 34-37, 39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2020/0022341), referred to hereafter as Li.
With regard to claim 34, Li discloses a floating wind turbine platform, comprising: a substantially triangular hull (Fig. 1) configurable to support a wind turbine tower (Fig. 1); the hull comprising a first, second and third column (2, Fig. 1), the first, second and third columns being connected by a first, second and third pontoon member (5), as well as by a first, second and third connector (see the connectors of element 3 in Fig. 1); wherein each connector comprises two outer ends (31) and at least one side (32) extending between the outer ends thereof is planar (Fig. 2).
With regard to claim 35, Li further discloses that one of the at least one planar sides is vertically oriented (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 36, Li further discloses that the vertically oriented surface is outward facing, and facing away from the centroid of the substantially triangular hull (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 37, Li further discloses that the at least one planar side of each connector is a single planar surface (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 39, Li further discloses that each of the first, second and third columns comprises a first external side adjoining a first intersecting surface and a second external side adjoining a second intersecting surface (Fig. 1, 2. Note that even a circle can be divided in external sides adjoining intersecting surfaces).
With regard to claim 44, Li further discloses that each connector comprises a narrowed central portion and widened end portions (Fig. 1, 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shivers (US 7,270,071).
With regard to claim 34, Shivers discloses a floating wind turbine platform, comprising: a substantially triangular hull (Fig. 1) configurable to support a wind turbine tower; the hull comprising a first, second and third column (lower columns 19, 21, 23, and upper columns 13, 15, 17, individually or in combination), the first, second and third columns being connected by a first, second and third pontoon member, as well as by a first, second and third connector (in a first interpretation, the pontoon members are 31 or 29, and the connectors are 30a, 30b, 30c, and in a second interpretation, the pontoon members are 31 and the connectors are 29) ; wherein each connector comprises two outer ends and at least one side extending between the outer ends thereof is planar (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 35, Shivers further discloses that one of the at least one planar sides is vertically oriented (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 36, Shivers further discloses that the vertically oriented surface is outward facing, and facing away from the centroid of the substantially triangular hull (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 37, Shivers further discloses that the at least one planar side of each connector is a single planar surface (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 38, Shivers further discloses that each planar side is coplanar with a surface of one of the first, second and third columns (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
With regard to claim 39, Shivers further discloses that each of the first, second and third columns comprises a first external side adjoining a first intersecting surface and a second external side adjoining a second intersecting surface (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b. Note that even a circle can be divided in external sides adjoining intersecting surfaces).
With regard to claim 40, Shivers further discloses that the first and second external sides each are flush with an outer side of a respective pontoon member (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b, note that in the first interpretation, the pontoon members can be 29).
With regard to claim 41, Shivers further discloses that the first and second external sides are flush with an outer side of a respective connector (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2020/0022341), referred to hereafter as Li in view of Shivers (US 7,270,071).
With regard to claim 38:
Li discloses the floating wind turbine platform of claim 34, as set forth above.
Li does not appear to explicitly disclose that each planar side is coplanar with a surface of one of the first, second and third columns
However, Shivers teaches a floating platform comprising a substantially triangular hull having pontoon members and connectors with planar sides, and further teaches that each planar side is coplanar with a surface of one of the first, second and third columns (Fig. 1, 2, 3a, 3b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making the planar side to be coplanar with a surface of one of the columns, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 42, 43, 45, and 46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claims 42, 45, and 46, the prior art does not disclose that on each of the three sides of the substantially triangular hull, a respective external side of the column, an outer side of the pontoon member and the planar surface of the connector are coplanar, or that the widened end portions widen linearly from a horizontal length at an end adjacent the narrowed central portion equal to the width of the narrowed central portion to a horizontal length at an outer end thereof that is equal to the horizontal length of an adjacent intersecting surface, or that the widened end portions have a horizontal cross-section of at least one of an irregular trapezoid or a right-angled trapezoid, and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because it would require improper hindsight reconstruction. Claim 43 depends from claim 42.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar floating wind turbine platforms such as US 6,701,861.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745